Hi everyone, this is Mr. Chandrapala here, and I'm really looking forward to working with you today on "Analysing extended responses to unseen poetry".

Looking at model answers is such a critical thing to do to reflect on what we can improve within our own responses.

It allows us to magpie and steal things for ourselves, but also tells us a little bit about what we could do to improve if we look at models that are a little bit below what we would normally expect.

Let's dive in in today's lesson.

So for today's lesson, we're going to consider and explain the effectiveness of multiple responses.

Our key words for today include the adjective transient, which is the state or fact of lasting only for a short time.

The adjective ephemeral or ephemeral, which means lasting for a very short time.

The adjective ambiguous, which means, something that is unclear or vague, which is open to more than one possible interpretation.

And the concept of impermanence, which is the state or fact of lasting only for a limited period of time.

So we're gonna start off today's lesson by analysing one response.

We're gonna analyse two responses in the course of the lesson, but analyse one to begin with.

To begin with though, let's start off by just clarifying why is it so important to look at model answers? How is it a useful exercise? Pause the video, discuss with the person next to you or in your class, or maybe jot down your own ideas, and when you're ready, hit play.

Some really interesting contributions there.

So Izzy says, "It allows us," model answers allow us, "to see how we might frame certain ideas "and magpie," take, steal, borrow, "particular phrases "for our own work as well as potentially allowing us "to see how to avoid misconceptions." As I said right at the top, it's so important that we're able to look at model answers and think about what would we want to do to mirror that and what would we want to avoid so that we can improve on those model answers? So as I said, "Today we're gonna be looking at "two responses to the question.

"Compare how Laskey and Robertson present the concept "of transient in 'Nobody' and 'Donegal'.

The responses, to each, to the question are both in your additional materials.

I'm gonna ask you to pause the video now.

Go to the additional materials, and I just want you to read the first response by yourselves.

Once you have done that, come back and hit play.

Fantastic.

Well done for reading that first response.

We're going to break it down now, so you're gonna want it out in front of you, and you're gonna want a pen or a pencil in your hand so that we can annotate as we're discussing it.

But first of all, just thinking about your first impressions of that first response.

Do you think it is effective? Why or why not? Pause the video, have that discussion with your partners or in your class, and once you've done so, hit play.

Well done everyone.

So loads of people are explaining why they think it is an effective response or how they could improve it.

We're gonna talk about what's good about this response initially.

Laura pointed out, she thinks it's effective because it seems confident of its ideas and it refers to the effect on the readers throughout.

This is really important when we're thinking about unseen poetry responses.

The fact that it's confident in its views, it doesn't sort of, it's not ambiguous, it's not uncertain is really excellent.

It means that there's a real clear line of argument.

And the fact that it refers to the effect on the reader throughout is great because that shows the effect of the writer's method, which is so important for this style of question.

We're gonna begin by considering the introduction.

I want you to pause the video and just discuss, why do you think the introduction to response one is so effective? Once you've done that, hit play.

Well done everyone.

So Laura was having a look at this and thought it's a really interesting and effective introduction because it uses specific vocabulary from the question.

And she's absolutely right, that is a real strength of that.

Izzy said that, "It also shows the subtle differences "in what both poems are saying about transients." And I'm so pleased with the fact that Izzy is picking up on that.

She's spotted what is a similarity, the fact that both poems talk about transient, but it's actually considering the subtle difference between that and it's therefore just taking that idea just a step further.

So we're just going to deconstruct parts of the first paragraph to try to understand why it's effective.

As we're doing so, I want you to consider why this sentence is effective.

So Laskey's "Nobody" opens and closes with the image of a snowman and of snow, which we might read as metaphors for the impermanence of life because a snowman will not last forever.

I want you to pause the video and have that discussion.

What so promising and effective about this sentence? Once you've identified that, hit play.

Some really interesting ideas there.

Let's see if we can take some feedback and add to your already such impressive discussions.

So you may want to think about the fact that there is the contextualization of the quotation within the journey of the poem.

We situate the quotation so we know exactly where it will start or where it's come from within the poem.

We can also see why it relates to the concept of transience.

The student has made it really clear how it links to that concept by linking it to that word impermanence.

We've got synonyms of the transience, for example, impermanence to show a range of vocabulary as well.

We'll go on to the next part.

"Arguably, we might see Laskey's 'Nobody' "as less ambiguous than Robertson's 'Donegal' "because we hear messages such as seize the day "throughout our lives and what, "and it's something that everyone can relate to." Again, I'd like you to pause the video and discuss what you think is effective about this response.

Once you've done so, hit play.

Some really interesting ideas there everyone.

Again, I just want you to note down when you see a new idea that I'm going through on the screen now.

So in terms of what makes this sentence effective, we can see that it offers a judgement of the poem in relation to ambiguity, and it relates the message of the poem the reader, and the wider society.

So these two things really make this part of the text effective because it's considering the wider impact.

If we then have a look at the conclusion, we'll read through now, and consider what makes that such an effective conclusion.

"In conclusion, based on Laskey's 'Nobody' "and Robertson's 'Donegal' ask the reader "to consider the transient nature of life "and how we need to make the most of any opportunities "that we have because our lives and our relationships "are constantly changing and evolving." What do you think makes this conclusion so effective? Pause the video.

Have that discussion in your partners or in your class, and when you've done so, hit play.

I was so pleased that so many of you were picking out so much that is worthy of praise in this conclusion.

I really liked it because as Izzy points out, "It considers "what the poem might mean for us as the reader "and how it affects our lives." This is totally right to be thinking about that.

The candidate has clearly thought here about the wider messages of each poem, which really lifts the entire text.

So just quick a check for understanding now.

True or false.

"That response one analysed quotations effectively "throughout the answer." Pause the video, select true or false, and when you're ready, hit play.

Well done everyone.

We can say that that is true, but can we justify that? Is it because "a: it explained the connotations of words "and how they relate to the concept of transience?" Or "b: because it explained what literary techniques "were being used and demonstrated "excellent subject knowledge." Pause the video, select your option, and when you're ready, hit play.

Well done everyone.

We can say that it is a.

The fact that the response one analyses connotations of individual words is really helpful and they've linked it to that key concept of transience.

So we're just gonna practise putting all of this together mow.

I want you to read back through response one, and I just want you to decide, what ideas or phrases would you want to magpie, to take or steal or borrow from this first response? You might want to consider the vocabulary used, the phrasing or the personal response developed in that response.

Once you've done that, hit play.

As we went through right at the start, going through model answers is a really good way of developing our own knowledge and our own responses because if we magpie effectively, we'll be able to use these in our own writing.

Let's take some feedback on what you could have looked at.

So our two Oak pupils have given some ideas.

Laura says, "I'm going to magpie the words reflect, "represent, and mimic to show effect." Whilst Izzy is more interested in considering impermanence and ephemeral as synonyms of transience.

How well do they align with your ideas? Pause the video now and select which one you would do.

Maybe add it to your own notes if you haven't got either one of their ideas.

And then when you've done so, hit play.

Really good note-taking there everyone.

I have to say, I'd be really interested in doing what Laura has pointed out, whilst Izzy's vocabulary is absolutely fantastic and so good for this particular response, and actually some really nice sophisticated vocabulary for wider life, I really like Laura's choices because actually that's something that we can almost pick up and play within every single unseen poem response that we do.

So it's a really helpful thing for us to bear in mind.

We are now gonna have a look at analysing response two.

So before we start thinking about the second response, you first need to read the second response.

So I'm gonna ask you to pause the video now and just begin reading the second response, which you'll find in the additional materials for today's lesson.

Once you've done so, hit play.

Well done everyone.

I want you to start off by thinking whether response two is more or less effective than response one.

Whichever way you choose, can you explain why we had so much to praise in response about one, but what maybe is something that is, what would we say about response two in comparison to it? Once you've done that, hit play.

Well done.

I could see a lot of you telling the rest of your class or working with your partner or just writing down in your own notes that you thought that response two was weaker.

Sofia had thought it was weaker as well, and she said it was less effective because the writer doesn't seem as sure of their ideas or their argument.

Remember what I said earlier.

It's so important that we're really clear about our ideas or argument because it really helps the clarity of our response, which is so crucial in any of our writing.

Let's have a look at that introduction.

So the introduction to response two, the candidate writes "Both Laskey's 'Nobody' "and Robertson's 'Donegal' explored the concept "of nothing lasting forever in their poems. "They both consider this idea, "but they apply it to different scenarios in life." Okay, what do we think is not particularly effective by that introduction? You may wanna have a look at response one and think about what was so good about that and think about actually how response two just doesn't quite hit that mark in the same way.

What response would you give that, or what is missing from it? Once you've done that, hit play.

Well done everyone.

So some of the things that you could have pointed out is the fact that it doesn't use the word transient, and it suggests that Laskey and Robertson are applying the concept of transience to different scenarios, but it doesn't specify what they are.

It's so important that you are specific.

It's something that I'm constantly writing down on my students' essays, to be specific in the way that they approach their ideas.

Because to be general means that there's a sort of lack of clarity in our response, which is as we've already said, we really want to avoid.

Now I want you to consider the first paragraph.

Response two uses the exact same images as response one.

Why is response two not as effective? Pause the video, have that discussion, and when you're ready, hit play.

Fantastic work there everyone.

I really liked the way that you were looking back at your notes for response one and then cross-referencing with response two.

Izzy had a look at response two and she said, "Well, response two just informs us that snow "and a beach relate to transience "without explaining why to the reader." It's very much like pointing at something and then not explaining its significance.

That's no good to us, we need to be able to explain why it's so important, how it changes our reading.

Response two uses the phrase, "Everything moves forward "and nothing stays the same", in the first paragraph.

Where else do you? Where else do you see this in the response? Where else do you see this idea that it doesn't develop on its ideas or it repeats an idea rather than explaining it? Pause the video and then we'll hear what Izzy's got to say.

Some lovely ideas there everyone.

I was really glad to see that we were all starting to make our own inferences on that.

Izzy, when looking at this said, "Well, we also see this phrase "in the second and third paragraph "as well as the conclusion," which is a really big issue, isn't it? Because we're seeing that repetition of quotes, which without having that development of ideas means that actually we're not covering a wide enough range of evidence.

So it's a really limited response.

So why might repeating the same phrase throughout not be so effective? Pause the video again and have that discussion.

What's the issue with that repetition? Once you've got that, we'll also hear from Izzy.

Some really interesting ideas, some really, really impressive takes on why we don't wanna just repeat phrases.

Izzy points out, it suggests to the reader, the examiner, that we don't have the language or vocabulary to express our ideas in different ways.

Which is such a problem.

Part of being a clear writer means that we're able to think of different ways of expressing ourselves, because actually that means that we're showing that we're confident in our views.

If we're going to the same phrases, that means that actually we're not developing our ideas in enough detail, and we're not allowing ourselves to show the full capability of our thought.

I now want you to read through the second, the second paragraph in the second response.

Again, the same quotations are used to response one, but why is response two not as effective? Once you think you've identified why with your partner or your class, hit play.

Well done everyone.

So maybe you've got similar things to us at Oak.

Laura pointed out that "response two doesn't consider "the subtle similarities between the word other "and the fact that they are all active.

"It doesn't consider what the tension might mean "for the concept of transience." This is a really big problem because again, we've got loads of evidence being put in or we have evidence being put in, but we don't necessarily have enough inference made around it.

Response two also attempts of personal response at the end of the second paragraph.

But why is it not effective? Pause the video and think about what made response one's personal responses really effective.

How does response two not do that? Once you've worked that out, hit play and we'll hear from Laura.

Fantastic work there everyone.

Laura pointed out, "response two doesn't consider "the effect the poems have on the reader "or what they might say about society, "and instead it makes guesses "about the poets and their lives." We need to move away from using the poet to make guesses about poets and their lives because actually poets can choose to do things that are really quite outside the box, and that means that we're not going to be making accurate predictions all the time.

Instead, we need to think about what the poet is using the text to say about society, how it relates to the rest of our lives.

Now let's consider the third paragraph.

I want you to consider how this response could be extended to make it an effective comparative analysis of structure.

It's great that the candidate tries to use structure in the second paragraph, but what could we do to further develop it? Pause the video, have that discussion, and when you're ready, hit play.

Well done everyone.

So Laura was having a think about this and she said, "I think considering which other "similar techniques they use," or the poets use, "would extend the analysis." Izzy agreed and said, "Yes, the poems don't use "the exact same structure throughout, "and I think that analysing that "will make an effective comparison." I think it's a really good idea because actually if we're thinking about how the structures are slightly different we'll be able to consider how they are used to convey different messages.

I now want us to move to looking at the conclusion.

How can we extend the conclusion to make it more effective? Pause the video, have that discussion, and when you're ready, hit play.

Well done everyone.

So Izzy points out that we could extend it by saying what reading the poems might inspire the reader to do.

What it might tell us about human nature and how we can cope with the idea of transience? What I really like about Izzy's response is the fact that it's linking back to one of those key words: transience, and it's thinking about the wider societal impact, the wider comment on human nature, which is so crucial for developing that response.

So let's just have a quick check for understanding about which of the following things response two did well.

Is it the fact that a, it chose a good range of quotations and imagery from both poems? B: the fact that they clearly explain the effect of the quotations and how they related to the concept of transience.

Or c: the fact they explain the subtle differences between the two poems and their approach to transience.

Once you've selected your option, hit play.

Well done everyone.

We can clearly see that it is a.

both response one and response two actually pick quite similar evidence in both paragraph one and paragraph two.

So we can say that response two has a good range of quotations and imagery from both poems. That's a big tick, but it's not doing enough and saying enough about that evidence.

So it's not developing its argument fully enough.

We're gonna return to the attempt at personal response in response two.

This is the line.

"Perhaps Laskey and Robertson were having "particularly bad days where they were feeling a bit lonely "and they were reflecting on how nothing in life "or relationships stays the same forever." How would you reframe this to make it an effective personal response? I want you to write this up as a short answer.

To do this, you might consider how this might relate to the effect on the reader and what might it make the reader think of.

Once you've done that, hit play and we'll take some feedback.

What's always such a pleasure about working with you was the fact that you're such thoughtful writers and are really capable of redrafting other people's work.

I'm so impressed.

Let's see if we can extend your already fantastic pieces just that little bit further.

So Izzy's response is up on the board now.

How well does it align with yours? Izzy said, "I can take the concept of lonely "and reframe it as suggesting that the poems "invite the reader to reflect on "their relationships with others "and consider the ever-changing nature "of those relationships." What I really like about Izzy's response again, is the fact that it's thinking about the wider impact of the text, the wider message for the audience, which is so crucial to understanding it.

Pause the video now and see how well it aligns with yours, or if there's anything you would like to magpie.

And once you've done that, hit play.

Fantastic work.

What makes it such a privilege working with you is the fact that you are really thoughtful about this feedback process, and it shows that you have such a strong commitment to developing the work.

Well done everyone.

We've now come to the end of today's lesson on "Analysing extended responses to unseen poetry".

So let's recap with our summary for today's lesson.

"Analysing model answers allows us to explore "how we might frame ideas and how to avoid misconceptions." We know to do that we need "to effectively analyse quotations, "and we need to explain "how we have reached our conclusions.

"An effective conclusion summarises our arguments "and gestures to what it might say about society, "and that is so critical.

"And a personal response may reflect on how the meaning "of the poem relates to the reader and wider society." Unseen poetry is an excellent way about thinking of how writers are trying to communicate with the world around them.

I've been so impressed with the way that you've been thinking about that today, and I'm really proud of your work.

Thank you so much for joining me and all of your efforts, and I'm really looking forward to working with you again very soon.

Bye for now everyone.